ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009
Evaluation of bowel cancer registration data in England, 1996-2004.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinicopathological Characteristics and Overall 5-Year Survival of Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Management of colorectal cancer explains differences in 1-year relative survival between France and England for patients diagnosed 1997-2004.British journal of cancer · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Health Service (NHS) bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) was initiated across England in April 2006. To determine the feasibility of using national cancer registration data to assess the impact of the BCSP on stage-specific incidence, we studied trends in the incidence rates of colon (ICD10 C18) and rectosigmoid junction and rectum (ICD10 C19-C20) cancers and the completeness of data on Dukes stage in England.
methodsData were obtained from all nine cancer registries for the period 1996-2004, before the introduction of the BCSP, in men and women aged 50-79 years.
resultsOverall, incidence rates declined by 1% per year in the 9 years before the introduction of the BCSP (P<0.001). Dukes stage was recorded for 60% of all registrations but this varied between regions and over time. Only four registries had completeness of 74% or more. Registrations with unknown Dukes stage decreased from 1996 to 2000, and then increased during 2001-2004 affecting trends in stage-specific incidence.
conclusionTo study the impact of the BCSP on stage-specific incidence, regional variations in data completeness need to be addressed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.